Summary
Four of the five survivors from the boat intercepted on February 25 spoke to reporters while they remained in state custody.
The interviews took place in the presence of the prosecutor in the case and the MININT colonel who leads the investigations into crimes against national security.
The detainees remain in a maximum security section of the Combinado del Este prison and face terrorism-related charges.
A journalistic investigation published this week in the middle Belly of the Beast It allowed for the first time the testimony of four of the five survivors of the Florida-registered boat that was intercepted by Cuban Border Guards on February 25. Five people died in the confrontation, and the other five occupants were detained.
The four men—José Manuel Rodríguez Castelló, Christian Ernesto Acosta Guevara, Leordán Enrique Cruz Gómez, and Conrado Galindo Sariol—were interviewed while in custody awaiting trial on terrorism-related charges. A fifth survivor, Amijail Sánchez González, He was not interviewed; the report indicates that it could not determine whether he refused to speak or whether the authorities did not allow him to.
The interviews were conducted individually, in a residence belonging to the Ministry of the Interior (MININT) in Havana, and were attended by Edward Robert Campbell, the prosecutor in the case, and Colonel Francisco Estrada Portales, The head of the MININT's investigations into crimes against national security. The four detainees said they agreed to speak voluntarily and were not pressured or given promises in return, but journalists cautioned that these claims were dubious. could not be independently verified and that the conditions of the interviews were less than ideal because they involved people deprived of their liberty.
The context of those statements is especially relevant from a legal point of view. Those interviewed were neither free nor in front of journalists who could speak with them under independent conditionsThey were detained, under state custody, and were answering questions about events that are part of the criminal proceedings that the authorities are carrying out against them.
The right not to incriminate oneself
Cuban legislation itself expressly recognizes safeguards that are relevant to evaluating these interviews.
The interviews alone constitute a form of self-incrimination, which violates what is expressly established in both the Cuban Criminal Procedure Law and international human rights standards., including the ICCPR, and that destroys the presumption of innocence.
This is further aggravated for having developed them in the presence or guided by the prosecutor in the case and the colonel responsible for the investigations of Crimes against State Security of the MININT, who are responsible for bringing criminal charges against the accused, gathering the necessary evidence to support the accusation and, ultimately, ensuring that they are punished.
Although the detainees claimed to have agreed to the interviews “voluntarily” and without any promises in return, the media outlet itself warns that these claims “could not be independently verified” and that the conditions were “less than ideal” for people in detention.
Under international law, any confession or admission of guilt must be voluntary. The accused must be made to recount how they organized, financed, and carried out the assault. in front of the prosecutor who will present the case against him It constitutes a structurally coercive environment, under which it is impossible to guarantee that they are not incriminating themselves through submission to mechanisms of mental torture, especially when the article mentions that some of the detainees took advantage of the recorder to “alleging mistreatment” and openly criticize the Cuban government. This situation, according to international treaties—such as the Convention against Torture—would obligate the State to conduct an immediate, impartial, and independent investigation, something that has not happened and, therefore, compromises the legality of any future sanctions.
The fact that the detainees claimed voluntary participation does not, in itself, eliminate the need to examine the conditions under which that statement was made. The UN Human Rights Committee has interpreted the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself or to confess guilt as a protection against direct or indirect forms of physical or psychological coercion aimed at obtaining a confession.
There is also an important difference between a genuinely independent journalistic interview and a conversation with detainees while the authorities responsible for the case remain present. In the second scenario, the person's actual ability to refuse to answer, limit their statements, or report pressure is much more difficult to assess externally.
The absence of lawyers during the interviews
The report also reveals that access to legal representation has been unequal. Rodríguez said he had not yet found a lawyer willing to take his case; Cruz stated that he had not yet requested one; Acosta said he had met with his lawyer several times; and, according to his wife, Ana Seguí, Galindo has had legal representation since March.
Law 143 establishes that every accused person has the right to a defense and to appoint a lawyer once formally charged. The legislation also provides for the appointment of a lawyer by the court in certain circumstances for individuals detained or held in pretrial detention. In criminal matters, the right to legal assistance is non-waivable.
No valid sanctioning process can proceed if the accused lacks technical representation, since the State cannot validate the violation of an individual's fundamental rights.
This type of procedure destroys the principle of contradiction that should govern the criminal process., turning the process into a mere inquisitorial procedure, vitiating it with absolute nullity and forcing its repetition.
An investigation by the same bodies mentioned
The structure described in the report also creates a problem of impartiality.
The interviewees remain in state custody and were previously questioned by MININT investigators. They were then transferred to a maximum-security section of the Combinado del Este prison. The journalistic investigation indicates that they remain in pretrial detention along with Duniel Hernández Santos, who had been in Cuba since 2024 and is identified by the authorities as an alleged collaborator in the operation.
At the same time, the journalistic interviews were conducted in front of the prosecutor handling the case and the colonel leading the investigations into crimes against national security.
If during those conversations a detainee uses the opportunity to report threats, beatings, or any other form of mistreatment, The authority receiving that complaint cannot treat it as a secondary matter.. The obligation under the Convention against Torture requires that allegations be examined by authorities capable of acting independently and impartially. The Committee against Torture has indicated that an investigation fails to meet this standard when its lack of independence could compromise its effectiveness and impartiality.
A process that must be subject to effective judicial control
The five survivors remain in pretrial detention and face terrorism-related charges. According to the prosecutor quoted in the report, the The crimes could carry penalties of up to 30 years in prison or even the death penalty.
The very design of Law 143 is based on the principle that the criminal process must determine the responsibility or lack thereof of the accused and defendants, while the presumption of innocence is maintained until there is a final conviction.
Therefore, statements made from prison cannot replace the adversarial debate before a court or the presentation of evidence that allows demonstrating the responsibility of each accused individually.
The case also requires clarifying the circumstances of the death of the five people during the interception of the vessel, as well as the subsequent conditions of detention of the survivors. The investigation of these events must be independent of the bodies directly involved in the arrest and the criminal investigation, and any allegation of torture or ill-treatment must receive a prompt, effective and impartial investigation.
Until that happens, the interviews published this week leave open fundamental questions about how the Cuban state is building the criminal case against the survivors and whether the guarantees recognized by its own legislation are being effectively respected.